Supreme Court Rejects DMK's Plea Against Madras HC Order Restraining Use Of OTP Verification For Membership Campaign

The Supreme Court today(August 4) dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking to challenge an interim injunction order passed by the Madras High Court restraining Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam from sending OTP verification messages to the mobile numbers of persons under its 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu' scheme running across Tamil Nadu. 

Before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, Senior Advocate P Wilson, for DMK Party, submitted that the scheme is a mass membership door-to-door drive organised across Tamil Nadu by the DMK, which parties like Bharatiya Janta Party and Aam Aadmi Party also carry out. Wilson objected to the interim injunction, stating that there was no prayer before the High Court seeking interim relief.

Justice Narasimha, however, praised the manner in which the High Court handled the matter. He said: "We appreciate that High Court has equally shown sensitivity of handling [personal information]...The issue is sensitive..."

Wilson tried clarifying that the High Court proceeds on the assumption that DMK is asking for Aadhaar details. However, the party is only verifying the OTP. He said: "I am a party, I am going door to door, I am only saying that my party has done schemes and all...And the questions are, 'Are your family availing any Government scheme?' 'Do you support our cause?' Every party is doing it Mylords...This injunction, my programme has come to a standstill. I am doing what other parties are doing...45 days programme, 1.7 crores members have come and offered themselves. There is no complaint, not before single police station complaint that I am torturing them."

Responding to this, Justice Narasimha said: "Citizens have a right to be flexible in their choices of the party. If you are asking them to commit for something like this, you might [impinge] upon their freedom. You might join a party today or leave it or keep it open-ended. But you have a record of their predilections. What the High Court did is right." 

He added that the other parties following a similar scheme are "equally bad" and there is no "justification" just because their schemes have not been challenged. 

Justice Narasimha also orally remarked that Wilson should act like a lawyer and not as a spokesperson of DMK. He: "You are less of a party lawyer than more of an advocate before us, right? You are appearing as a lawyer first of all. Don't get involved in it."

Wilson responded that the High Court itself was not clear while granting the injunction. He contended that the High Court refers to the Draft Data Protection Bill, which is not even in place. To this, Justice Narasimha said: "The Court has to protect the citizens."

Before the Madras High Court, Rajkumar(now a Respondent) had filed a writ petition seeking to declare the collection and use of Aadhaar card details by the DMK and its functionaries for "political propaganda" under its "Oraniyil Tamil Nadu" scheme to be unconstitutional.

Oraniyil scheme is a mass membership door-to-door drive organised across Tamil Nadu by the DMK party, in which personal information, including phone numbers, is allegedly obtained and OTP verification messages are sent on the numbers. The petitioner argued that it relates to the data protection of the individuals, which is an essential part of Article 21.

It had also sought an investigation by the UIDAI and the Union of India to initiate a thorough investigation into the alleged unauthorised collection of Aadhaar data by the DMK. 

The High Court expressed concern about how the data is stored and processed, and stated that its implications for the right to privacy of the voters, including the right to privacy of their political affiliation, also ought to be examined. It therefore restrained DMK through an interim injunction from sending OTP verification messages until the issues of right to privacy and data protection is examined in details. 

Case Details: DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY Vs RAJKUMAR|SLP(C) No. 20528/2025 Diary No. 40023 / 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order